“Name Your Price”: Has New Hampshire’s Right-to-Know Law Become Negotiable?

There is a question now hanging over New Hampshire law — one that would have sounded absurd just a few years ago:

Can a citizen offer to sell their Right-to-Know rights to the government?

Not metaphorically. Not rhetorically.

Literally.

Because after the ruling issued by Judge Schulman, that question is no longer theoretical — it is a direct consequence of the legal framework the court has endorsed.

The Court’s Core Holding

In enforcing the settlement agreement at issue, the court concluded that an individual can:

• Accept payment from a municipality
• Agree to “submit no additional RSA 91-A requests ever again”
• And be legally bound by that promise

Even more striking, the court rejected the argument that such a waiver violates public policy — at least “as applied” in that case.

The reasoning is unmistakable:

The right to make Right-to-Know requests can be contracted away.

The Logical Extension No One Wants to Answer

If that is true — if a citizen can be paid to give up that right — then what exactly stops the reverse?

What stops an individual, with no prior dispute, from walking into a town office and saying:

“I am willing to give up my Right-to-Know rights.
What is it worth to you?”

Or more pointedly:

“Before I file hundreds of requests, let’s settle this now.
Pay me, and I won’t ask.”

There is no statute authorizing such conduct.

But there is also no statute authorizing what already occurred — a municipality purchasing silence — and yet that was upheld.

From Public Right to Private Transaction

The court attempted to limit its holding, emphasizing that the waiver was not “absolute” and that other avenues of access remained available .

But that distinction misses the larger point.

Because once a right can be:

• Waived prospectively
• Enforced through contract
• Supported by attorney’s fees
• And insulated from public policy challenges

…it has already crossed a critical line.

It is no longer purely a public right.

It is a negotiable interest.

And negotiable interests can be priced.

The Marketplace Problem

If this framework stands, it creates a disturbing — but entirely rational — marketplace dynamic:

• Governments can pay to avoid scrutiny
• Citizens can demand payment in exchange for silence
• Transparency becomes a matter of negotiation, not law

The question then becomes:

What is the going rate for silence?

$2,000?

$10,000?

$50,000?

Or more — depending on what the records might reveal?

The Court’s Own Hypothetical — and Its Limits

Ironically, the court itself acknowledged the danger of prospective waivers of statutory rights, even offering a hypothetical involving sweeping waivers of future claims that would violate public policy .

But then it stopped short.

It concluded that this case had not yet crossed that line.

That is precisely the problem.

Because once the principle is accepted — that a citizen can waive future statutory rights in exchange for value — the line becomes subjective, movable, and ultimately meaningless.

A Question That Demands an Answer

So we return to the uncomfortable question:

Can someone now walk into a New Hampshire government office and offer to sell their Right-to-Know rights?

If the answer is no, then the legal reasoning used to enforce these agreements must be reconsidered.

If the answer is yes, then RSA 91-A has been fundamentally transformed.

Not repealed.

Not amended.

But quietly converted into something else entirely:

A system where transparency is not guaranteed —

but negotiated.

Conclusion: When Rights Have a Price, They Have a Problem

The Right-to-Know law was never intended to function like this.

It was meant to ensure that:

• Government operates in the open
• Citizens can hold officials accountable
• Transparency is the rule, not the exception

But when courts allow that right to be exchanged for money — even in limited circumstances — they introduce a dangerous new concept:

That transparency has a price.

And once a price exists, the question is no longer whether the public has a right to know.

It is:

Who can afford to keep the truth hidden?